Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

PAPAL INFALLIBILITY (declared in 1870 AD).

Definition: When a pope is speaking in his official position on any issue of faith or morals, he is speaking infallibly, meaning without error.

Answer: The apostles never regarded any man to be infallible. Only the Word of God is regarded as without error.

If Peter was pope, which the Bible says he was not, then he made mistakes as in Galatians 2:11-14 when he was deceived by Judaizers. "But when Peter came to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed."

The following events from history show the error of papal infallibility.

1. Pope John XII, in the "Liber Pontificalis," the Catholic publication discussing the lives of the popes, states that "He spent his entire life in adultery."

2. Popes Innocent III, Gregory XI, Clement IV, Hadrian VI, and Paul IV all disagreed with papal infallibility.

3. Pope Stephen VI (896) had the dead pope Formosus (891-6) tried, questioned, fingers hacked off, dragged through Rome and thrown into the Tiber river.

4. Pope Hadrian II (867) declared civil marriage to be valid, but Pope Pius VII (1800-23) declared it to be invalid.

5. Pope Eugene IV (1431) had Joan of Arc burned alive as a witch, but later Pope Benedict IV in 1919 declared her to be a saint.

6. Pope Pius XI in 1929 endorsed Fascism and called Mussolini "a man sent by God." However, before World War II, he warned people against Mussolini.

7. The Vatican advised the German Catholic Party to vote for Nazi candidates. In 1933, the Vatican and Hitler signed a concordat, where the Catholic church swore allegiance to the Nazi government. Later on Pope Pius XI condemned Hitler.


How can a supposedly infallible man make so many errors of judgment, and even contradict other so-called infallible popes? 

Surely this disproves papal infallibility to any honest, open minded
person.

Edited by KiwiChristian
  • Thumbs Up 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.... The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,' above all in an Ecumenical Council.[LG 25; cf. Vatican Council I: DS 3074.] When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine 'for belief as being divinely revealed,'[DV 10 # 2.] and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions 'must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.'[LG 25 # 2.] This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.[Cf. LG 25.]" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Doubleday:New York, © 1994 United States Catholic Conference, Inc. – Libreria Editrice Vaticana, p. 568)

It appears to be yet another case of Roman Catholic infallible doctrine conflicting with Roman Catholic infallible doctrine. What I read prompted the question: When infallible doctrines are in opposition, was either one infallible?

First some background:

The Catholic dictionary defines infallibility as:

The inability to err in teaching the truth. In theology, it refers to: 1) the Church, in that she preserves and teaches the deposit of truth as revealed by Christ; 2) the Roman Pontiff, when he teaches 'ex cathedra' in matters of faith or morals, and indicates that the doctrine is to be believed by all the faithfull; and 3) the college of bishops, when speaking in unnion with the Pope in matters of faith and morals, agreeing that a doctrine must be held by the universal Church, and the doctrine is promulgated by the Pontiff.--Peter M.J.Stravinskay, Ed., Catholic Dictionary, (c) 1997 Our Sunday Visitor, Inc.

In 1546, the Fourth Session of the Council of Trent established an "infallible" rule to be applied when interpreting Scriptures in matters of faith and morals.

Furthermore, to check unbridled spirits, it decrees that no one relying on his own judgment shall, in matters of faith and morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, distorting the Holy Scriptures in accordance with his own conceptions,[5] presume to interpret them contrary to that sense which holy mother Church, to whom it belongs to judge of their true sense and interpretation,[6] has held and holds, OR EVEN CONTRARY TO THE UNANIMOUS TEACHING OF THE FATHERS, even though such interpretations should never at any time be published. Those who act contrary to this shall be made known by the ordinaries and punished in accordance with the penalties prescribed by the law. 

This rule has not been rescinded – nor is it likely ever to be rescinded, for doing so would suggest that the Extraordinary Magisterium had made an error. In fact, it was re-iterated in the "Profession of Faith" and in the "Dogmatic constitution on the Catholic faith, infallible documents produced by the infallible First Vatican Council:

1. I, Pius, bishop of the catholic church, with firm faith believe and profess each and every article contained in the profession of faith which the holy Roman church uses, namely…

2. Apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and all other observances and constitutions of that same church I most firmly accept and embrace.

3. Likewise I accept sacred scripture according to that sense which holy mother church held and holds, since it is her right to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy scriptures; nor will I ever receive and interpret them except according to THE UNANIMOUS CONSENT OF THE FATHERS.--First Vatican Council, 2nd Session, Profession of Faith, 6 January 1870 - [My emphasis)

8. Now since the decree on the interpretation of holy scripture, profitably made by the council of Trent, with the intention of constraining rash speculation, has been wrongly interpreted by some, we renew that decree and declare its meaning to be as follows: that in matters of faith and morals, belonging as they do to the establishing of christian doctrine, that meaning of holy scripture must be held to be the true one, which holy mother church held and holds, since it is her right to judge of the true meaning and interpretation of holy scripture.--First Vatican Council, 3rd Session, Dogmatic constitution on the Catholic faith, 24 April 1870 )

9. In consequence, it is not permissible for anyone to interpret holy scripture in a sense contrary to this, or indeed against the UNANIMOUS CONSENT OF THE FATHERS--Ibid.

So, here we have an infallible doctrine, infallibly defined by two infallible church councils (Trent and Vatican I), and infallibly promulgated by infallible popes as matters of faith or morals to be believed by all the RCC. The doctrine: no one, not even the Roman Catholic church itself, is to hold an interpretation of Scripture contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.

With all these infallible declarations, one wonders that the Roman Catholic church, which preserves and teaches the "deposit of faith as revealed by Christ," should violate one of the rules she infallibly established to determine infallibility.

You see, it is a fact that the church fathers did not unanimously consent to the doctrine of infallibility as currently held and taught by the Roman church:

God alone swears securely, because HE ALONE IS INFALLIBLE.--Augustine of Hippo, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series: Volume VIII, St. Augustin on the Psalms, Psalm LXXXIX, Sec. 4

Therefore, one must wonder whether the doctrine of infallibility, which does not meet it's own test of authenticity, is infallibly taught.

There is no doubt that Roman apologists will have ready defenses to explain this apparent conflict. However, the clear wording of the Councils leaves no room for equivocation: The dogma of Mary's assumption fails Rome's own test of the unanimous consent of the fathers.

When these present their charges and unsupported opinions, bear in mind the words of another church father much beloved of Rome:

Concerning the Hearers: that those hearers who are instructed in the Scriptures should examine what is said by the teachers, receiving what is in conformity with the Scriptures and rejecting what is opposed to them; and that those who persist in teaching such doctrines should be strictly avoided.--Basil of Caesarea, Fathers of the Church, Vol. 9, Ascetical Works, The Morals, Rule 72, p. 185-186.

Or, as the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write:

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.--Colossians 2:8

  • Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pope Francis admits he made 'grave errors' in judgment in Chile's sex abuse scandal and invites the abuse victims he discredited to Rome to beg their forgiveness

  • Pope Francis wrote extraordinary letter to Chilean bishops admitting failings
  • The pontiff refused to believe a bishop he appointed covered up child sex abuse
  • Bishop Juan Barros was the protege of paedophile priest Fernando Karadima
  • The Pope maintained Barros was innocent but sent a top investigator to Chile
  • After reading the 2,300-page report he changed his position and apologised
  • He summoned all Chilean bishops to Rome for a crisis meeting to deal with it.

Full report here;

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5604981/Pope-acknowledges-mistakes-Chile-sexual-abuse-crisis.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/9/2018 at 9:55 PM, KiwiChristian said:

PAPAL INFALLIBILITY (declared in 1870 AD).

Definition: When a pope is speaking in his official position on any issue of faith or morals, he is speaking infallibly, meaning without error.

Answer: The apostles never regarded any man to be infallible. Only the Word of God is regarded as without error.

If Peter was pope, which the Bible says he was not, then he made mistakes as in Galatians 2:11-14 when he was deceived by Judaizers. "But when Peter came to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed."

The following events from history show the error of papal infallibility.

1. Pope John XII, in the "Liber Pontificalis," the Catholic publication discussing the lives of the popes, states that "He spent his entire life in adultery."

2. Popes Innocent III, Gregory XI, Clement IV, Hadrian VI, and Paul IV all disagreed with papal infallibility.

3. Pope Stephen VI (896) had the dead pope Formosus (891-6) tried, questioned, fingers hacked off, dragged through Rome and thrown into the Tiber river.

4. Pope Hadrian II (867) declared civil marriage to be valid, but Pope Pius VII (1800-23) declared it to be invalid.

5. Pope Eugene IV (1431) had Joan of Arc burned alive as a witch, but later Pope Benedict IV in 1919 declared her to be a saint.

6. Pope Pius XI in 1929 endorsed Fascism and called Mussolini "a man sent by God." However, before World War II, he warned people against Mussolini.

7. The Vatican advised the German Catholic Party to vote for Nazi candidates. In 1933, the Vatican and Hitler signed a concordat, where the Catholic church swore allegiance to the Nazi government. Later on Pope Pius XI condemned Hitler.


How can a supposedly infallible man make so many errors of judgment, and even contradict other so-called infallible popes? 

Surely this disproves papal infallibility to any honest, open minded
person.

Once again I will number your points and hopefully, respond with evidence of each. BUT first I will attempt to answer the final question, born of ignorance and extreme- prejudice.

CODE OF CANON LAW {1983} BOOK III.

THE TEACHING FUNCTION OF THE CHURCH LIBER IIIDE ECCLESIAE MUNERE DOCENDI

Can. 747 §1. The Church, to which Christ the Lord has entrusted the deposit of faith so that with the assistance of the Holy Spirit it might protect the revealed truth reverentlyexamine it more closely, and proclaim and expound it faithfully, has the duty and innate rightindependent of any human power whatsoever, to preach the gospel to all peoples, also using the means of social communication proper to it.

§2. It belongs to the Church always and everywhere to announce moral principles, even about the social order, and To render judgment concerning any human affairs insofar as the fundamental rights of the human person or the salvation of souls requires it.

Can. 748 §1. All persons are bound to seek the truth in those things which regard God and his Church and by virtue of divine law are bound by the obligation and possess the right of embracing and observing the truth which they have come to know.

§2. No one is ever permitted to coerce persons to embrace the Catholic faith against their conscience.

Can. 749 §1. By virtue of his office, the Supreme Pontiff possesses infallibility in teaching when as the supreme pastor and teacher of all the Christian faithful, who strengthens his brothers and sisters in the faith, he proclaims by definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held.

§2. The college of bishops also possesses infallibility in teaching when the bishops gathered together in an ecumenical council exercise the magisterium as teachers and judges of faith and morals who declare for the universal Church that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held definitively; or when dispersed throughout the world but preserving the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter and teaching authentically together with the Roman Pontiff matters of faith or morals, they agree that a particular proposition is to be held definitively.

§3. No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.

Can. 750 §1. A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of Godwritten or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them.

§2. Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firmly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faithapostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faithschism is the refusal ofsubmission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

Can. 752 Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.

Can. 753 Although the bishops who are in communion with the head and members of the college, whether individually or joined together in conferences of bishops or in particular councils, do not possess infallibility in teaching, they are authentic teachers and instructors of the faith for the Christian faithful entrusted to their care; the Christian faithful are bound to adhere with religious submission of mind to the authentic magisterium of their bishops.

Can. 754 All the Christian faithful are obliged to observe the constitutions and decrees which the legitimate authority of the Church issues in order to propose doctrine and to proscribe erroneous opinionsparticularly those which the Roman Pontiff or the college of bishops puts forth.

Can. 755 §1. It is above all for the entire college of bishops and the Apostolic See to foster and direct among Catholics the ecumenical movement whose purpose is the restoration among all Christians of the unity which the Church is bound to promote by the will of Christ.

§2. It is likewise for the bishops and, according to the norm of law, the conferences of bishops to promote this same unity and to impart practical norms according to the various needs and opportunities of the circumstances; they are to be attentive to the prescripts issued by the supreme authority of the Church. END QUOTES

SUMMARY OF ABOVE:

Canon #749

Infallible pronouncements MUST:

1 Be on Faith and or Morals ONLY

2 Be declared to be an Infallible Pronouncement

3. Has to be done and identified from the “Chair of Peter”

4 Is Proclaimed to be “a definitive pronouncement” on this PRECISE issue of Faith or Morals. END

Hence numbers, 1a, definition is incorrect & 1b,3,4,6,&7 simply DO NOT qualify by definition as a “Infallible Pronouncement”

 

Answer: The apostles never regarded any man to be infallible. Only the Word of God is regarded as without error.

Ahhhh, not exactly true:

1 Like the words bible and purgatory are not found in the Bible; Infallibility was a recognized thing; just not articulated in this precise manner.
 

The example of Paul correcting Peter is correct; BUT not relevant to this issue; this was a Church Practice NOT a Dogmatic Issue. Practices ARE changeable; Dogmas are not in their core teachings.

As to the recognized PRIMACY of Peter 7 ROME:

The Early Church Fathers on
The Primacy of Peter/Rome

The Early Church Fathers understood from the beginning that Peter and his successors held a place of primacy in the Church.

 

Clement of Rome

Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect (Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:1[A.D. 95]).

 

Ignatius of Antioch

You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).

Irenaeus

 “But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles.

With this church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree—that is, all the faithful in the whole world—and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” Against Heresies 3:3:2 [inter A.D. 180-190

 

Irenaeus

But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [inter A.D. 180-190]).

 

Clement of Alexandria

[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? "Behold, we have left all and have followed you" [Matt. 19:2 7, Mark 10:28] (Who is the Rich Man That is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]).

 

Tertullian

[T]he Lord said to Peter, "On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven" [Matt. 16:18-19]. ... Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loose

and, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).

 

Letter of Clement to James

Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D, 221]).

 

Cyprian

The Lord says to Peter: "I say to you," he says, "that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church" . . . On him he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. [A.D. 251]). END QUOTES

 

[1a] If Peter was pope, which the Bible says he was not, then he made mistakes as in Galatians 2:11-14 when he was deceived by Judaizers. "But when Peter came to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed."

WHERE IN THE BIBLE IS IT EXPRESSED THAT PETER WAS “NOT”

I can provide a list of 50 Peter Bible FIRST if you’d care to see it? This example deals with a Church PRACTICE, NOT a matter of faith or Morals DOCTRINE.

 

Popes Innocent III, Gregory XI, Clement IV, Hadrian VI, and Paul IV all disagreed with papal infallibility.

Paul IV {1555-1559} was the last Pope mentioned; these disputes were what brought to “a head” the need for the Church to declare for the first time a Dogmatic Proclamation to end confusion; NOT  existent in the EARLY church; but became a political issue as the Church grew. So Vatican One made it an Infallible Dogma of the RCC for the 1st time. PRIOR to this, it was various Popes just sharing their PERSONAL OPINIONS; not speaking Infallibily.

“In addition a large number of subjects for discussion had been sent by the bishops of various countries. Thus, for instance, the bishops of the church provinces of Quebec and Halifax demanded the lessening of the impediments to marriage, revision of the Breviary, and, above all, the reform and codification of the entire canon law. The petition of Archbishop Spalding of Baltimore treated, among other things, the relations between Church and State religious indifferencesecret societies, and the infallibility of the pope. The definition of this last was demanded by various bishops. Others desired a revision of the index of forbidden books. No less than nine petitions bearing nearly two hundred signatures demanded the definition of the bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin. Over three hundred fathers of the council requested the elevation of St. Joseph as patron saint of the Universal Church.” ……

……  On account of the violent disputes which had been carried on everywhere for the past year over the question of papal infallibility the overwhelming majority considered the conciliar discussion and decision of the question to be imperatively necessary. On the other hand the minority, comprising about one-fifth of the total number, feared the worst from the definition, the apostasy of many wavering Catholics, an increased estrangement of those separated from the Church, and interference with the affairs of the Church by the Governments of the different countries. The minority, therefore, allowed itself to be guided by opportunist considerations. Only a few bishops appear to have had doubts as to the dogma itself. END QUOTED …..

….. “On account of the war which threatened to break out between Germany and France, a number of fathers of both opinions had returned home. Shortly before the fourth public session a large number of the bishops of the minority left Rome with the permission of the directing officers of the council. They did not oppose the dogma of papal infallibility itself, but were against its definition as inopportune. On Monday, 18 July, 1870, one day before the outbreak of the Franco-German War, 435 fathers of the council assembled at St. Peter's under the presidency of Pope Pius IX. The last vote was now taken; 433 fathers voted placet, and only two, Bishop Aloisio Riccio of Cajazzo, Italy, and Bishop Edward Fitzgerald of Little RockArkansas, voted non placet. During the proceedings a thunderstorm broke over the Vatican, and amid thunder and lightning the pope promulgated the new dogma, like a Moses promulgating the law on Mount Sinai.  … END QUOTED

IT WAS NOT A DFINED DOGMA UNTIL VATICAN 1; July 18, 1870

5. Pope Eugene IV (1431) had Joan of Arc burned alive as a witch, but later Pope Benedict IV in 1919 declared her to be a saint.

This was NOT ever a dogmatic issue; It was a localized Moral issue at that time and place. …. The latter pronouncement, some 500 years later was a more informed; more humanizing

From the Catholic encyclopedia: THIS WAS FGAR MORE A POLITICAL ISSUE AT THAT TIME AND PLACE THAN A RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION; HENCE A FAR LATER {500 YEARS LATER} A MORE OBJECTION CONCLUSION WAS REACHED.

No words can adequately describe the disgraceful ingratitude and apathy of Charles and his advisers in leaving the Maid to her fate. If military force had not availed, they had prisoners like the Earl of Suffolk in their hands, for whom she could have been exchanged. Joan was sold by John of Luxembourg to the English for a sum which would amount to several hundred thousand dollars in modern money. There can be no doubt that the English, partly because they feared their prisoner with a superstitious terror, partly because they were ashamed of the dread which she inspired, were determined at all costs to take her life. They could not put her to death for having beaten them, but they could get her sentenced as a witchand a heretic.

Moreover, they had a tool ready to their hand in Pierre Cauchon, the Bishop of Beauvais, an unscrupulous and ambitious man who was the creature of the Burgundian party. A pretext for invoking his authority was found in the fact that Compiègne, where Joan was captured, lay in the Diocese of Beauvais. Still, as Beauvais was in the hands of the French, the trial took place at Rouen — the latter see being at that time vacant. This raised many points of technical legality which were summarily settled by the parties interested.

The Vicar of the Inquisition at first, upon some scruple of jurisdiction, refused to attend, but this difficulty was overcome before the trial ended. Throughout the trial Cauchon's assessors consisted almost entirely of Frenchmen, for the most part theologians and doctors of the University of Paris. Preliminary meetings of the court took place in January, but it was only on 21 February, 1431, that Joan appeared for the first time before her judges. She was not allowed an advocate, and, though accused in an ecclesiastical court, she was throughout illegally confined in the Castle of Rouen, a secular prison, where she was guarded by dissolute English soldiers. Joan bitterly complained of this. She asked to be in the church prison, where she would have had female attendants. It was undoubtedly for the better protection of her modesty under such conditions that she persisted in retaining her male attire. Before she had been handed over to the English, she had attempted to escape by desperately throwing herself from the window of the tower of Beaurevoir, an act of seeming presumption for which she was much browbeaten by her judges. This also served as a pretext for the harshness shown regarding her confinement at Rouen, where she was at first kept in an iron cage, chained by the neck, hands, and feet. On the other hand she was allowed no spiritual privileges — e.g. attendance at Mass — on account of the charge of heresy and the monstrous dress (difformitate habitus) she was wearing.” END QUOTES

END OF MY COMMENTS

Regards, Patrick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Patrick Miron said:

Once again I will number your points and hopefully, respond with evidence of each. BUT first I will attempt to answer the final question, born of ignorance and extreme- prejudice.

CODE OF CANON LAW {1983} BOOK III.

THE TEACHING FUNCTION OF THE CHURCH LIBER IIIDE ECCLESIAE MUNERE DOCENDI

Can. 747 §1. The Church, to which Christ the Lord has entrusted the deposit of faith so that with the assistance of the Holy Spirit it might protect the revealed truth reverentlyexamine it more closely, and proclaim and expound it faithfully, has the duty and innate rightindependent of any human power whatsoever, to preach the gospel to all peoples, also using the means of social communication proper to it.

§2. It belongs to the Church always and everywhere to announce moral principles, even about the social order, and To render judgment concerning any human affairs insofar as the fundamental rights of the human person or the salvation of souls requires it.

Can. 748 §1. All persons are bound to seek the truth in those things which regard God and his Church and by virtue of divine law are bound by the obligation and possess the right of embracing and observing the truth which they have come to know.

§2. No one is ever permitted to coerce persons to embrace the Catholic faith against their conscience.

Can. 749 §1. By virtue of his office, the Supreme Pontiff possesses infallibility in teaching when as the supreme pastor and teacher of all the Christian faithful, who strengthens his brothers and sisters in the faith, he proclaims by definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held.

§2. The college of bishops also possesses infallibility in teaching when the bishops gathered together in an ecumenical council exercise the magisterium as teachers and judges of faith and morals who declare for the universal Church that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held definitively; or when dispersed throughout the world but preserving the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter and teaching authentically together with the Roman Pontiff matters of faith or morals, they agree that a particular proposition is to be held definitively.

§3. No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.

Can. 750 §1. A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of Godwritten or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them.

§2. Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firmly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faithapostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faithschism is the refusal ofsubmission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

Can. 752 Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.

Can. 753 Although the bishops who are in communion with the head and members of the college, whether individually or joined together in conferences of bishops or in particular councils, do not possess infallibility in teaching, they are authentic teachers and instructors of the faith for the Christian faithful entrusted to their care; the Christian faithful are bound to adhere with religious submission of mind to the authentic magisterium of their bishops.

Can. 754 All the Christian faithful are obliged to observe the constitutions and decrees which the legitimate authority of the Church issues in order to propose doctrine and to proscribe erroneous opinionsparticularly those which the Roman Pontiff or the college of bishops puts forth.

Can. 755 §1. It is above all for the entire college of bishops and the Apostolic See to foster and direct among Catholics the ecumenical movement whose purpose is the restoration among all Christians of the unity which the Church is bound to promote by the will of Christ.

§2. It is likewise for the bishops and, according to the norm of law, the conferences of bishops to promote this same unity and to impart practical norms according to the various needs and opportunities of the circumstances; they are to be attentive to the prescripts issued by the supreme authority of the Church. END QUOTES

SUMMARY OF ABOVE:

Canon #749

Infallible pronouncements MUST:

1 Be on Faith and or Morals ONLY

2 Be declared to be an Infallible Pronouncement

3. Has to be done and identified from the “Chair of Peter”

4 Is Proclaimed to be “a definitive pronouncement” on this PRECISE issue of Faith or Morals. END

Hence numbers, 1a, definition is incorrect & 1b,3,4,6,&7 simply DO NOT qualify by definition as a “Infallible Pronouncement”

 

" First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time. For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying) as a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth. " (1 Timothy 2:1-7, NASB, emphasis mine)

Not Peter, not the Pope. Only Jesus Christ. Once the canon of Scripture was closed, God gave no new "revelations", nor does He change His mind about what He has said.

 

Quote

Answer: The apostles never regarded any man to be infallible. Only the Word of God is regarded as without error.

Ahhhh, not exactly true:

1 Like the words bible and purgatory are not found in the Bible; Infallibility was a recognized thing; just not articulated in this precise manner.
 

The example of Paul correcting Peter is correct; BUT not relevant to this issue; this was a Church Practice NOT a Dogmatic Issue. Practices ARE changeable; Dogmas are not in their core teachings.

As to the recognized PRIMACY of Peter 7 ROME:

The Early Church Fathers on
The Primacy of Peter/Rome

The Early Church Fathers understood from the beginning that Peter and his successors held a place of primacy in the Church.

 

Clement of Rome

Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect (Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:1[A.D. 95]).

 

Ignatius of Antioch

You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).

Irenaeus

 “But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles.

With this church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree—that is, all the faithful in the whole world—and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” Against Heresies 3:3:2 [inter A.D. 180-190

 

Irenaeus

But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [inter A.D. 180-190]).

 

Clement of Alexandria

[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? "Behold, we have left all and have followed you" [Matt. 19:2 7, Mark 10:28] (Who is the Rich Man That is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]).

 

Tertullian

[T]he Lord said to Peter, "On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven" [Matt. 16:18-19]. ... Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loose

and, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).

 

Letter of Clement to James

Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D, 221]).

 

Cyprian

The Lord says to Peter: "I say to you," he says, "that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church" . . . On him he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. [A.D. 251]). END QUOTES

 

[1a] If Peter was pope, which the Bible says he was not, then he made mistakes as in Galatians 2:11-14 when he was deceived by Judaizers. "But when Peter came to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed."

It does not matter what fallible men say; what matters is THE WORD OF THE LORD:

" Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He was asking His disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” And they said, “Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. “I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.” Then He warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ. " (Matthew 16: 13-20, NASB, emphasis mine)

In Greek, " PETROS" (the name given Peter in Scripture)means "a stone"; whereas "PETRA"(the word the Lord used for "the rock") means "a huge mass of stone". The Lord was NOT building the Church upon Peter, but UPON HIMSELF. Greek is a precise language that is very specific to words and their usages.

This mess is what happens when teaching is warped and twisted to fit the paradigm of man.

Quote

WHERE IN THE BIBLE IS IT EXPRESSED THAT PETER WAS “NOT”

I can provide a list of 50 Peter Bible FIRST if you’d care to see it? This example deals with a Church PRACTICE, NOT a matter of faith or Morals DOCTRINE.

 

Popes Innocent III, Gregory XI, Clement IV, Hadrian VI, and Paul IV all disagreed with papal infallibility.

Paul IV {1555-1559} was the last Pope mentioned; these disputes were what brought to “a head” the need for the Church to declare for the first time a Dogmatic Proclamation to end confusion; NOT  existent in the EARLY church; but became a political issue as the Church grew. So Vatican One made it an Infallible Dogma of the RCC for the 1st time. PRIOR to this, it was various Popes just sharing their PERSONAL OPINIONS; not speaking Infallibily.

“In addition a large number of subjects for discussion had been sent by the bishops of various countries. Thus, for instance, the bishops of the church provinces of Quebec and Halifax demanded the lessening of the impediments to marriage, revision of the Breviary, and, above all, the reform and codification of the entire canon law. The petition of Archbishop Spalding of Baltimore treated, among other things, the relations between Church and State religious indifferencesecret societies, and the infallibility of the pope. The definition of this last was demanded by various bishops. Others desired a revision of the index of forbidden books. No less than nine petitions bearing nearly two hundred signatures demanded the definition of the bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin. Over three hundred fathers of the council requested the elevation of St. Joseph as patron saint of the Universal Church.” ……

……  On account of the violent disputes which had been carried on everywhere for the past year over the question of papal infallibility the overwhelming majority considered the conciliar discussion and decision of the question to be imperatively necessary. On the other hand the minority, comprising about one-fifth of the total number, feared the worst from the definition, the apostasy of many wavering Catholics, an increased estrangement of those separated from the Church, and interference with the affairs of the Church by the Governments of the different countries. The minority, therefore, allowed itself to be guided by opportunist considerations. Only a few bishops appear to have had doubts as to the dogma itself. END QUOTED …..

….. “On account of the war which threatened to break out between Germany and France, a number of fathers of both opinions had returned home. Shortly before the fourth public session a large number of the bishops of the minority left Rome with the permission of the directing officers of the council. They did not oppose the dogma of papal infallibility itself, but were against its definition as inopportune. On Monday, 18 July, 1870, one day before the outbreak of the Franco-German War, 435 fathers of the council assembled at St. Peter's under the presidency of Pope Pius IX. The last vote was now taken; 433 fathers voted placet, and only two, Bishop Aloisio Riccio of Cajazzo, Italy, and Bishop Edward Fitzgerald of Little RockArkansas, voted non placet. During the proceedings a thunderstorm broke over the Vatican, and amid thunder and lightning the pope promulgated the new dogma, like a Moses promulgating the law on Mount Sinai.  … END QUOTED

IT WAS NOT A DFINED DOGMA UNTIL VATICAN 1; July 18, 1870

5. Pope Eugene IV (1431) had Joan of Arc burned alive as a witch, but later Pope Benedict IV in 1919 declared her to be a saint.

This was NOT ever a dogmatic issue; It was a localized Moral issue at that time and place. …. The latter pronouncement, some 500 years later was a more informed; more humanizing

From the Catholic encyclopedia: THIS WAS FGAR MORE A POLITICAL ISSUE AT THAT TIME AND PLACE THAN A RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION; HENCE A FAR LATER {500 YEARS LATER} A MORE OBJECTION CONCLUSION WAS REACHED.

No words can adequately describe the disgraceful ingratitude and apathy of Charles and his advisers in leaving the Maid to her fate. If military force had not availed, they had prisoners like the Earl of Suffolk in their hands, for whom she could have been exchanged. Joan was sold by John of Luxembourg to the English for a sum which would amount to several hundred thousand dollars in modern money. There can be no doubt that the English, partly because they feared their prisoner with a superstitious terror, partly because they were ashamed of the dread which she inspired, were determined at all costs to take her life. They could not put her to death for having beaten them, but they could get her sentenced as a witchand a heretic.

Moreover, they had a tool ready to their hand in Pierre Cauchon, the Bishop of Beauvais, an unscrupulous and ambitious man who was the creature of the Burgundian party. A pretext for invoking his authority was found in the fact that Compiègne, where Joan was captured, lay in the Diocese of Beauvais. Still, as Beauvais was in the hands of the French, the trial took place at Rouen — the latter see being at that time vacant. This raised many points of technical legality which were summarily settled by the parties interested.

The Vicar of the Inquisition at first, upon some scruple of jurisdiction, refused to attend, but this difficulty was overcome before the trial ended. Throughout the trial Cauchon's assessors consisted almost entirely of Frenchmen, for the most part theologians and doctors of the University of Paris. Preliminary meetings of the court took place in January, but it was only on 21 February, 1431, that Joan appeared for the first time before her judges. She was not allowed an advocate, and, though accused in an ecclesiastical court, she was throughout illegally confined in the Castle of Rouen, a secular prison, where she was guarded by dissolute English soldiers. Joan bitterly complained of this. She asked to be in the church prison, where she would have had female attendants. It was undoubtedly for the better protection of her modesty under such conditions that she persisted in retaining her male attire. Before she had been handed over to the English, she had attempted to escape by desperately throwing herself from the window of the tower of Beaurevoir, an act of seeming presumption for which she was much browbeaten by her judges. This also served as a pretext for the harshness shown regarding her confinement at Rouen, where she was at first kept in an iron cage, chained by the neck, hands, and feet. On the other hand she was allowed no spiritual privileges — e.g. attendance at Mass — on account of the charge of heresy and the monstrous dress (difformitate habitus) she was wearing.” END QUOTES

END OF MY COMMENTS

Regards, Patrick

Not only is the Lord NOT the author of confusion (which the Catholic Church seems to be rife with), but since WHEN is outright MURDER a merely "localized moral issue"?  THE SHEDDING OF BLOOD IS THE SHEDDING OF BLOOD, PERIOD. That they could not bring themselves to face that and left it to a generation centuries removes reveals the cowardice and scheming of those who pedal "dogma" would deal in lives for position and power. It does not matter when a "dogma" is decreed: the moment any "dogma" that directly contradicts the Word of God in Scripture is enacted, it is in OPPOSITION  TO THE LORD GOD. Being no respecter of persons, the Lord does not care who the bishop, archbishop, vicar, grand inquisitor or any "official" is or what their supposed authority is:  THE ONLY ONE WHOSE AUTHORITY MATTERS AND LASTS FOR ETERNITY IS THE LORD GOD'S.

THE VERY CORE AND SOUL OF THEIR PLOTTING IS NOT OF THE LORD, AND SHOWS THEM UNFIT TO CLAIM ANY ASSOCIATION WITH HIM. AND THUS, JUDGMENT HAS COME.

This is why there can be no room for the declarations of "Vatican" or the "Holy See" in the lives of those who serve the Lord. To entertain such IS TO INVITE JUDGMENT.

 

-SOJOURNER414 OUT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

do people actually believe infallibility of the papal?  papacy?  whatever its called, i dont get into all the titles.    I cant count the times when i was a little boy i heard my mother and grandmothers and aunts and uncles say... no one is perfect.  I dont even think someone has to have biblical knowledge to know this.   Being a human everyone pretty much knows this.   its apart of the human element. 

  • Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Cletus said:

do people actually believe infallibility of the papal?  papacy?  whatever its called, i dont get into all the titles.    I cant count the times when i was a little boy i heard my mother and grandmothers and aunts and uncles say... no one is perfect.  I dont even think someone has to have biblical knowledge to know this.   Being a human everyone pretty much knows this.   its apart of the human element. 

Easy for us to say that Cletus , but what are there?  over 1 billion Roman Catholics worldwide? They believe in the Popes infallibility and divinity.

  We didn't drink the kool aid  but unfortunately a billion people did and they belong to a religious cult that the Pope is the supreme leader of.  It is like all the false religions- they have a human leader a guru or a master that they bow to and follow their instructions - the RC religion is no different accept that it keeps insisting  is not only Christian, but but that IT is representative and the HEAD of it--with  all it's false doctrines and dogma?   It is trying to claim control of Christendom again & reverse the effects of the Reformation. 

  • Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

What is dangerous with this infallibility and reverence to the pope, is that the pope can be saying things that are contrary to holy scripture and sound convincing enough to sway people who don't know much about the bible or what Gods plan of Mercy and Grace truly stands for through Gods only begotten Son Christ Jesus.

I just recently head part of an interview with Pope Francis where he is asked about sexual abuse within the church and he answered that those found out should be brought to trial as is one of the worst things and those committing such things should be punished accordingly,  and bought to court of law for their actions. Then the following question to the pope was why are children so abused in this world and the pop answered something to the effect: why did God allow Christ to die on the cross?

Now to answer like that throws off the True reason why God allowed His only begotten Son Christ Jesus to die on the cross and that was to buy us back from the Power of sin and nothing less.

The way the pope seems to phrase his words, it sounded like ; God allowed Christ his own son to suffer. Sending the message that some things in the world make no sense and so the same happens to children... I mean i don't know, maybe i miss understood but the answer he gave did not sound like a man who understood the meaning of Christs sacrifice on the cross. The same as when he said in another speech, that Christ dying on the cross was a failure.

The way the pope phrases his words, leaves people to get the wrong meaning of what Gods plan of Mercy and Grace through Christ Jesus is.

its misleading and unfortunately people who don't know better what is written in the holy bible, only see a man that looks and seems to act kindly and piously.  And that seems to be good enough for them to keep giving him respect and reverence. 

Edited by 1to3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/9/2018 at 11:54 PM, HAZARD said:

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.--Colossians 2:8

this is what i see the RCC doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Davida said:

Easy for us to say that Cletus , but what are there?  over 1 billion Roman Catholics worldwide? They believe in the Popes infallibility and divinity.

  We didn't drink the kool aid  but unfortunately a billion people did and they belong to a religious cult that the Pope is the supreme leader of.  It is like all the false religions- they have a human leader a guru or a master that they bow to and follow their instructions - the RC religion is no different accept that it keeps insisting  is not only Christian, but but that IT is representative and the HEAD of it--with  all it's false doctrines and dogma?   It is trying to claim control of Christendom again & reverse the effects of the Reformation. 

my point was we need not even look to God breathed scripture to know beyond a shadow of doubt that a man, any man, every man, is in fact fallible.  If so many people are content to believe such nonsense, let them.  I can only do what I can do.  whats on my path, which from what i have read, is ordered.  if my words of simplicity fail to influence any of those who believe this, even with such a gargantuan amount of info in the news, what then can any of us do that know that Jesus is The Christ, and that there is none other besides Him?  aside from praying, i can think of nothing.  you can take a horse to a water hole, but you cant force his head down to drink.  you will push and pull with all your might, but your feet will come off the ground first. 

When i see what you have said above, which i do agree with how its bad, i use that to encourage me to do whats right in Gods eyes even more.  God rewards our actions.  if we do righteousness we will receive blessing.  if we sow to the wind we reap the whirlwind.  they have their reward.  God showed me awhile back about not fretting because of evil doers. 

I say let them try to gain control of Christendom and reverse reformation all they want.  they are fighting God.  (lol)  Jesus said not even the gates of hell would prevail.  i was just trying to appeal to common sense.  i suppose if there was none available i wasted my time.  at least i tried tho. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Similar Content

    • By KiwiChristian
      ERROR OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION (1215 AD).   Definition: The whole substance of the bread and wine is converted into the actual and real entire body and blood of Christ.   Answer: Radbertus first invented this doctrine in the 9th century. Catholics support this by a literal view of Matthew 26:26-29. "Take eat; this is my body. For this is my blood of the new testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins."   Consider these reasons why the bread and wine were symbols of Christ’s body and blood, to be partaken in for remembrance purposes only, and that there was no material conversion of the bread to the body, nor of the wine to the blood of Christ.   1. Jesus, after saying "this is my blood" in Matthew 26:28 also said "I will not drink henceforth of this FRUIT OF THIS VINE" in Matthew 26:29, showing that the grapejuice was STILL WINE and had not been changed to blood.   2. Jesus often referred to Himself in symbols. So why see Him as literal in a symbolic context?   John 10:7 "I am the door." Did Jesus mean he was literally wooden? No.   John 14:6 "I am the way." Did Jesus mean he was literally a road? No.   John 15:5 "I am the vine." Did Jesus mean he was literally a tree? No.   John 8:12 "I am the light." Did Jesus mean he was literally a torch or a sun? No.   John 6:48 "I am the bread of life." Did Jesus mean he was literally a loaf of dough? No.   John 6:63 states clearly that Jesus was speaking spiritually, not literally: "The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life."   Luke 22:19 states clearly that the Lord's supper is for remembrance purposes: "This do in remembrance of me." This is a metaphor, where one thing is said to be another thing because of it’s similarity. A metaphor is a figurative use of terms without indicating their figurative nature, for example, “he shall eat his words”.   3. The bread and wine did not become Christ's body and blood because:   a) Christ was still present with them. Christ would have had 2 bodies, one which died on the cross and one which did not.   b) To drink blood was forbidden in Acts 15:20,29 "We write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from BLOOD."   In Deuteronomy 12:16 "Only ye shall not eat the blood."   4. The tense of the Greek verbs "EAT" in John 6:50,51,52,53,54,56,57,58 is in the AORIST tense showing a ONCE-FOR-ALL, point action, that is NOT CONTINUAL.   The Biblical Lord's supper is to be a repeated event, and therefore has no saving merit. Roman Catholics are commanded to believe in transubstantiation because it was stated at the Council of Trent (11 October 1551) that this doctrine was essential for salvation. They pronounced curses on anyone who would deny it.   Paul the Apostle, in contrast, pronounced a double curse on anyone who preached a gospel different from the all sufficiency of Christ's death, burial and resurrection to save us from our sins. Galatians 1:6-9 puts a double curse on this "other gospel" of transubstantiation for salvation.   5. Before Christ ascended to heaven, He promised to come to us during the Church Age, NOT in the sacrifice of the MASS, but by the Holy Spirit (John 14:16-18 as Comforter): "He shall give you another Comforter ... even the Spirit of truth ... I will not leave you comfortless: I WILL COME TO YOU.” Note: Christ will return to earth a second time visibly in glory. This is what is meant by 1 Corinthians 11:26 "For as oftenas ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death TILL HE COME."   Note: This means that Christ does not come literally and visibly as the wafer in the mass, but to the air as in 1 Thessalonians 4:16,17.   6. At the Council of Constance in 1415 it was agreed to withold the cup from the congregation lest the wine be spilt. However this contradicts 1 Corinthians 11:25-29 where ALL Corinthian believers drank of the wine: "Whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup unworthily." v.27. Drinking the cup is mentioned six times in five verses. Transubstantiation is not a mystery, but an absurdity; not a difficulty but a contradiction.   Question: How then do we eat his flesh and drink his blood?   Answer: Through the WORD OF GOD.   John 6:63 "The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."   John 1:14 "And the Word was made flesh."   John 5:24 "He that heareth my Word and believeth on him that sent me, has everlasting life."   The scribes who knew Jeremiah 31:31-34, "I will put my law in their inward parts", and Jeremiah 15:16, "Thy words were found and I DID EAT THEM; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart", understood the idea of receiving God's Word into one’s inner being.   Peter got the message, while others planned to desert Jesus:   "Thou hast the WORDS of eternal life." John 6:68.   "Being born again ... by the WORD of God." 1 Peter 1:23-25.   Peter knew that Jesus was speaking about the WORD of God, and not about literal flesh and blood.   Question: If this doctrine of transubstantiation only arose in the 9th century, and if it is so necessary to Roman Catholic salvation, what happened to those who lived before the 9th century not believing this doctrine? Did they all go to hell?   Question: What about the thief on the cross who repented and never took the wafer? Did he go to hell?    No! Jesus said he went to paradise.
    • By KiwiChristian
      Many catholics are arrogant enough to say that THEY "gave" us the Bible.
      The catholic organisation mearly defined what IT would use as the Bible, NOT what the Bible was.
       
      Long before the council of hippo "gave us the bible", Origen, born A.D. 185 and died A.D. 254, named ALL the books of the Bible in his writings and  Eusebius, 270 A.D., lists ALL of the books of the NT.
       
      The Old Testament books were gathered into one volume and were translated from Hebrew into Greek long before Christ came to earth.
       
      It cannot be proven that the Catholic Church is solely responsible for the gathering and selection of the New Testament books. In fact, it can be shown that the New Testament books were gathered into one volume and were in circulation long before the Catholic Church claims to have taken its action in 390 at the council of Hippo.
      God did not give councils the authority to select His sacred books, nor does He expect men to receive His sacred books only because of councils or on the basis of councils. It takes no vote or sanction of a council to make the books of the Bible authoritative. Men were able to rightly discern which books were inspired before the existence of ecclesiastical councils and men can do so today. A council of men in 390 with no divine authority whatever, supposedly took upon itself the right to state which books were inspired, and Catholics argue, "We can accept the Bible only on the authority of the Catholic Church." Can we follow such reasoning?
    • By KiwiChristian
      If the Bible is a Catholic book, how can Catholics account for the passage, "A bishop then, must be blameless, married but once, reserved, prudent, of good conduct, hospitable, a teacher...He should rule well his own household, keeping his children under control and perfectly respectful. For if a man cannot rule his own household, how is he to take care of the church of God?" (1 Tim. 3:2, 4-5). The Catholic Church does not allow a bishop to marry, while the Bible says "he must be married." Furthermore, if the Bible is a Catholic book, why did they write the Bible as it is, and feel the necessity of putting footnotes at the bottom of the page in effort to keep their subject from believing what is in the text?
       
      If the Bible is a Catholic book,
      1. Why does it condemn clerical dress? (Matt. 23:5-6).
      2. Why does it teach against the adoration of Mary? (Luke 11:27-28).
      3. Why does it show that all Christians are priests? (1 Pet. 2:5,9).
      4. Why does it condemn the observance of special days? (Gal. 4:9-11).
      5. Why does it teach that all Christians are saints? (1 Cor. 1:2).
      6. Why does it condemn the making and adoration of images? (Ex. 20:4-5).
      7. Why does it teach that baptism is immersion instead of pouring? (Col. 2:12).
      8. Why does it forbid us to address religious leaders as "father"? (Matt. 23:9).
      9. Why does it teach that Christ is the only foundation and not the apostle Peter? (1 Cor. 3:11).
      10. Why does it teach that there is one mediator instead of many? (1 Tim. 2:5).
      11. Why does it teach that a bishop must be a married man? (1 Tim. 3:2, 4-5).
      12. Why is it opposed to the primacy of Peter? (Luke 22:24-27).
      13. Why does it oppose the idea of purgatory? (Luke 16:26).
      14. Why is it completely silent about infant baptism, instrumental music in worship, indulgences, confession to priests, the rosary, the mass, and many other things in the Catholic Church?
       
      Now, please my friend, when you reply to this, please stick to just a couple of points per post, then it will be easier to respond to, unless you want to make a VERY long post answering ALL these points in one post, hoping that no-one will take the trouble to address your points.
       
×